Having never received any formal teacher training, my vow to be the best at my new- found profession was an ambitious one. I immediately decided on an approach that would have me mirror the characteristics of the “great” teachers from my formative years with whom I had learnt best. There was no room for my personality. I was confident that I would achieve success through the “mask” I had created. Within just my first week of teaching, I had to revise my strategy somewhat. I was not any of these teachers I previously mentioned. Sure they, and my schooling, had had some influence in shaping my personality (Musgrave, 1965, p. 69). I was not, however, a tabular rasa. I could not just wholly assimilate the best of each of my teachers’ personalities. I had my own personality; my own “self,” shaped in part through my own experiences, that went towards informing my decisions. I reacted less or more intensely to stimuli within my work environment in comparison to my teachers. I quickly learnt that I couldn’t be five different people all at the same time and that it was acceptable to be myself and trust my evaluations on a day to day basis.

Another change I had to make within my first week was the language format of my instruction. Teachers traditionally delivered their lessons using Standard English and not Creole, as it was not an “accepted language.” I couldn’t always do so if I my goal at the end of a teaching session was complete understanding on the part of all students in the class. In addition, the students did not speak Standard English. Their dialect was fused with Jamaican dancehall and American hip-hop ‘slang’ which would have made discourse in and out of class difficult were I not familiar with the language of these art forms. I found digressing in and out of Creole easier for the purpose of teaching. It easily aided students in their understanding of concepts in Social Studies when I spoke in “their language.” They opened up to me and felt more at ease participating in discourses in class as I accepted, with slight correction, their use of Creole. It was easier, then, within this framework to show the students differences between the languages of home and school.

Until my enrollment in the diploma programme, I had no real idea of the sociological perspectives surrounding education. Mine and my students’ education, the subject I teach, Social Studies, and its subject matter, had been and is, situated within a functionalist framework that stresses order for the continuation of society (Haralambos, 1995, p. 726). I was a tool of the bourgeoisie according to Karl Marx; producing surplus labour for the capitalists to exploit through “the hidden curriculum” (Haralambos, 1995, p. 736). My dream of my students escaping a life of drudgery was a “false consciousness” as their future was already pre-destined by the lower socio-economic class into which they were all born. I also did not realize that sociologists linked the socialization of this same class to the behaviour; poor attitude to schooling; poor parental participation, and low academic performance I see on a daily basis (Musgrave, 1965, pp. 67-71). While I do see some validity in the Marxist promulgations of “privilege breeding privilege” and surplus labour for exploitation, I rather my students be educated and exploited in such a system to the non-negotiable alternative of death their neighbourhoods offer.

Finally, similar to my sociological ‘revelation’, the philosophical underpinnings of my profession have only just become apparent. I saw myself as just trying to be ‘a good teacher’ to my students in my being punctual and prepared for class; in my teaching strategies, and their review, that stress on successful transference of knowledge and discovery of truths pitched to their cognitive levels; in the equality of treatment I meted out to students, and in my getting involved in all aspects of their lives. The roles and functions I perform as a teacher, subscribe to ethical and professional standards I know exist but fail to recognize even as I try holding to them. Philosophy recognizes the intentional nature of teaching and the fact that it is goal-oriented to bring about learning in students. This is distinct from conditioning, brainwashing and indoctrination which seek to deny students use of their capacity for independent judgement (Scheffler, 1973, p.67). I was, therefore, being ethical every day I went to work without any real cognition as to the ethics involved in education.

In conclusion, I have come to the realization that what I do on a daily basis is indeed greater than just my standing in front of a class delivering a lesson, or engaging students in some activity to achieve learning. What I do has a history, a philosophy and a science, both social and applied, which I now recognize in full, and have enrolled to refine my practice of such.